Chism, Churchill & Co. v. Thomson
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Benton county. Hon. B. T. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The appellee, complainant in the court below, alleged in her bill that, on April 1, 1891, her husband, M. H. Thomson, was indebted to the firm of which appellants are successors in the sum of $5,000, evidenced by his note dated January lé, 1891, and due January 1, 1892, and that, on the day first mentioned, he and complainant executed a deed of trust on her land in Benton county, Mississippi, to…
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Benton county. Hon. B. T. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The appellee, complainant in the court below, alleged in her bill that, on April 1, 1891, her husband, M. H. Thomson, was indebted to the firm of which appellants are successors in the sum of $5,000, evidenced by his note dated January lé, 1891, and due January 1, 1892, and that, on the day first mentioned, he and complainant executed a deed of trust on her land in Benton county, Mississippi, to secure the same; that when her husband executed the note he at the same time executed a deed of trust to secure it on…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The appellee was surety for the original debt of her husband due to appellants, and she was discharged from liability as such surety by reason of the cancellation of the principal debtor’s trust deed given on his own property to secure that debt, and the surrender to the principal debtor of that property, without her knowledge or consent, and, further, by reason of the extension for a specified time, upon sufficient consideration, of *415the balance due by the principal debtor for which appellee was surety, and this without her knowledge or consent, also.
The appellee was not entitled to recover…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cole v. Exchange National Bank of ChicagoSupreme Court of Florida · 1966
- Millsaps v. TateMississippi Supreme Court · 1897
- In re SmithDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1931
- Peets & Norman Co. v. BakerMississippi Supreme Court · 1909